As the federal government shutdown continues thanks to a tea party tantrum, New Jersey is experiencing a judicial impasse.

It began when Gov. Chris Christie broke with decades of precedent and denied tenure to Supreme Court Justice John Wallace. Christie made no bones about his aim – to dismantle what he called “an activist court” following decisions with which he disagrees.

Many jurists saw Wallace’s record as a testament to impartiality and wisdom. And some interpreted Christie’s untoward intervention as a chilling message that their jobs could be on the line if their decisions displeased the governor. Even more frightening, some said, was the prospect that the high court’s decisions might be interpreted by the public as kowtowing to Christie.

Senate Democrats were quick to retaliate. After approving Christie nominee Ann Patterson for another vacancy, they held their breath and refused to consider another nominee until Wallace’s next term would have ended on the occasion of his 70th birthday.

It’s gone downhill from there, including internecine squabbling that had one justice going on strike.

The Senate has rejected two of the governor’s nominees in wrangling over the court’s partisan balance. It has refused to hold hearings on two others. A hearing has been scheduled for Superior Court Judge Faustino Fernandez-Vina, but there is no word yet on whether another Christie nominee will be considered.

In the midst of all this, Christie declined to reappoint Justice Helen Hoens to a tenured second term on the bench. The governor explained he was saving her from the “animals” in the Senate he apparently sees as set on devouring any Republican he sends their way.

Losing Hoens diminishes the high court. She has lived, she said, “in the margins and the shadows of society” raising her autistic son. Her experience and her perspective were unique on the bench, but not among those who brought their cases before it.

Gov. Christie and leading Democrats must look beyond the superficialities of party affiliation; they must consider more than satisfying a checklist of litmus tests.

Character, intellect, judicial and life experience are the qualifications that matter. Any jurist worth his or her salt will consider a case on its merits. Any judge worthy of the name will hew not to the party line but to the pursuit of justice.

That seems to have been forgotten in this very long and drawn out petty partisanship.
Retired Chief Justice Deborah Poritz believes New Jersey should consider changing its constitution by scrapping the initial seven-year terms for judges and adopting the federal model of granting lifetime tenure from the start.

Since this process has been injected with such antipathy and scorekeeping, that idea becomes more and more appealing.